-
For what it's worth:
If you stack melodic minor VII in 4ths instead of 3rds you get:
1 b4(3) b7 #9 b13/#5 b9 #11/b5
Similar game with harmonic major III except with 5 instead of #11/b5
1 b4(3) b7 #9 b13/#5 b9 5
-
04-17-2017 01:09 AM
-
The be-bop scale said to the altered scale come on, two octaves! Then we'll add a note and make you super-altered!
Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Does the Super Locrian stand alone among super-modes?
Last edited by Stevebol; 04-17-2017 at 02:56 AM.
-
The Mother of All Theories- Super Theory Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Jazz is based on chords. Classical on harmony but classical music does have a characteristic chord change- the I and V chords. That where MM fits. Originally Posted by christianm77
Historically AFAIK, Gypsy Jazz musicians listen to a lot of classical music. The melodic minor becomes ingrained if you listen to it a lot.
What happens on the V is one of the most interesting parts of a lot of music- jazz, classical, blues.
Melody is the common link between all music.
-
Dismiss? Well we agree. Originally Posted by ragman1
I'll repost your quote of DT's email for reference:
Hi there, thanks for the interest.
Check out Chapters 9-10 of my book ("A Geometry of Music") for some information on this topic.
I personally suspect that the harmonic minor explanation is part of the story, as I say in Chapter 10, especially if you consider the common "double neighbor" 5-b6-b7-b6-5 pattern which goes back to before Chopin. Add this double neighbor to the harmonic minor's V7 and you are pretty close to the altered scale -- it's just the replacement of scale degrees 1-2 with b2.
For me, Herbie Hancock is the guy who really plays a lot of altered scale in a consistent way. It's all over his playing. The other source here is the TTsub of the acoustic scale (#11, or C-D-E-F#-G-A-Bb). This is how it shows up in impressionism. You should check "Lydian Chromatic Concept" to see if it is in there.
I don't think Charlie Parker played it much if at all. There is altered-sounding stuff in Bud Powell, but usually kind of ambiguous and harmonic-minor-y.
I have a pet theory, which I can't prove, that McCoy Tyner was going for an "altered sound" but typically using pentatonics -- so trying to hit the main altered notes but using a pentatonic scale. He may not have explicitly thought in terms of altered sounds.
Jazz education probably popularized the idea and created more of a "common language" shared by many other jazz players. It was maybe more of an individual thing, used by some folk but not others, before the 1970s.
Hope that helps!
DT
No specific Ravel/altered scale examples, but I'll take a look at the book for sure, and see what examples he gives (lyd dom/acoustic overtone scale is present in Kodaly's music if not Ravel/Debussy).
The double neighbour + harmonic minor pattern he is talking about is the same thing as I discovered from transcribing, and what Reg refers to see above. 'Reg minor' Barry Harris's minor's dominant. etc.
The content of the email is exactly what I covered in early posts + some great bits of extra info. It's good to know my findings are confirmed by someone like DT.Last edited by christianm77; 04-17-2017 at 03:19 AM.
-
It's very simple. You were all speculating etc so I said why not ask a specialist. You weren't so keen so I did. Originally Posted by christianm77
Naturally he referred back to his paper. His work wasn't done to satisfy this thread so if it doesn't too bad. He's doubtless moved on to other things anyway.
But he has said specifically that, having researched it, the composers he mentioned used the altered scale. It's not my fault he said that.
If you here don't want to listen to what he says, fine. I don't care! But I think when the statement is made by someone of his stature it would be foolish to dismiss it.
I don't say this is a clinching argument, it's just what it is. Don't shoot the messenger!
(In any case, after 7 pages of this, I don't think anyone really knows the answer. And I don't think there is one.
You'd have to start with an early example of the use of the scale, as you'd want to hear it used, and then go back meticulously over every jazz recording made till you couldn't find any more examples. That would give you some idea and even then it would probably be a bit uncertain. And no one's going to do that, of course).
-
You're too quick for me! I reposted that in one post after your quote.
I'm not surprised what you thought, jazz-wise, was confirmed. But the issue was the classical composers, wasn't it?
-
Well, not quite. The issue for me is really where the term 'Ravel scale' comes from and how and if Ravel influenced altered scale use in jazz back in the 50s & 60s. Originally Posted by ragman1
DT's retroactive analysis of impressionist harmony can't help us there - it's more an issue of oral history than musicology perhaps. So *shrugs*
-
One problem is the definition of using the altered scale. Does it only qualify if all the altered notes are used? Say you include all but the b9, which is the whole-tone scale. Or all except the b13, which is the diminished scale. Then what?
There's no onus on anyone to use every available note. Does that mean they don't know about the altered scale, by whatever name? Or just haven't used every available note?
-
At least he's honest. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Hal Galper vid -
Absolutely. Now you know why I prefer melody and rarely play fast :-)
I agree with him about CST too, it's correct theoretically (and as such I wouldn't dismiss it altogether) but the ear is better.
Mind you, it isn't always true that the best improvisations are just embellishments of the melody. There's a sort of happy medium where the improv can take off any place but remains within the spirit of the tune. I think that's the main point, that one should never lose the spirit of the tune - otherwise you may as well play any old thing, and that doesn't usually work. In fact it's bad improvisation.
-
Hmm... Originally Posted by christianm77
MM is special in a couple of regards : it's kind of symmetrical and ambiguous , while at the same time being "very dominant sounding". Two tri-tones but doesn't necessarily have to be specific .
To me the whole thing always sounds like a minor seven flat five chord... and an altered dominant ....and a minor major seven... All at the same time . :-)
Also, because of its dominant/ambiguity , it very much kind of a pivot function. While implying whatever it's meant to imply , it also can be implying a new relationship which may can explore or not. Used to always hear "m7b5 opens the door to melodic minor and other options/ possibilities".
Diminished is similar , but less specific and committal. Melodic minor is more like your dog, and diminished is more like cat? :-) Too early....
If I had to guess, I'd blame some piano player somewhere . I would suspect that kind of top-down harmonic perspective as being important.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-17-2017 at 07:28 AM.
-
Aha - DT does give a good example of the altered scale in Ravel. m51 Ondine in Chapter 10.
So Ok then - of course it's hard to ascertain just how common this was for Ravel without diving into the scores myself.
-
Further info - downloaded 20th Century Harmony by Vincent Persichetti (1961)
It lists the Super-locrian as a synthetic mode, along side the whole tone, Enigmatic scale, Neapolitan Major and Minor, Hungarian Major and Eight Note Symmetrical (Dim)
Persichetti doesn't identify it as a mode of the melodic minor, but he does point out that these scales can all be used to generate modes. I think the concept of melodic minor as a source of harmony was alien to classical theorists possibly?
No direct examples given - there are examples of pieces using synthetic scales, but nothing specific. One would have to check through them.
No mention of the acoustic overtone scale here, but I know that this was heavily used by Kodaly and Bartok, IIRC (as well as Debussy & Ravel according to DT)
Great book tho - haven't looked at this for about 15 years.Last edited by christianm77; 04-24-2017 at 05:38 PM.
-
I am a bit prejudiced about scale/mode - wise analysis in modern classics...
I'll explain why...
I had once an argument regarding Webern's Piano variations.. the thing was that I aanlyzed almost totally ignoring the series Weben so consequently used in that piece.
Of course I saw these series in the score and I understood the methods he used (deriving all the texture from one series) but when listnening or playing the piece I could hear a differnt logics in the overall form of the piece.. relations of the sections, even periods... this piece had quite traditional classical structure actually...
Method-wise Webern probably was closest to Bach (not to baroque polyphony in general - I mean namely Bach).... Bach also took a theme as concentration of the essence of the whole... every element is derived from it.
But what is this source? Or rather what makes this theme a source? Vast cultural musical context, existence in the living musical language.
With Bach's theme it is important not just what pitch or consequence or rythm have the notes of the theme... but which possible contexts exist for these relations in the musical language of baroque music, or personally Bach's.
Same thing happens to Webern series... Does intonative strusture of the series really mean anything further in the universe of his musical piece?
Is it not not only invisible brickwork? In late Romanesque they often painted fake brickwork on plaster.. and the building did not show any features of orginal real brickwork and its constructional logics...
My problem (or maybe it's mota problem?) is that I take music as intricate complex semantical system... so I cannot just detect the scale in the texture if I do not hear this scale as semantic element of musical piece.
So when the altered scale is really a part of music in that sense?
-
Salient point. Bach is not Dm A7 Dm D7 Gm etc. If you write chord symbols over Bach it's kind of hilarious because it's so obvious to anyone with a passing interest in his music that that is not where the interest lies. Originally Posted by Jonah
But some impressionist music is kinda..... scaley... especially perhaps Debussy, so it feels as it is more appropriate somehow to talk about scales in this context.
The composers that seem particularly important inspirations for jazz composers are those whose music can be understood however incompletely as a surface texture. I think, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky perhaps Messiaen are the main influences. And Bartok as well I guess.
-
Bach's music is emotionally interconnected. You cannot ever say what is more important in this very moment texture rhythm intonation harmony... all elements are so mutually drivable that it reminds trying to focus on one segment of the picture at the same time losing the other segment out of focus. And Bach does miraculous thing all the elements are equally in focus at the same time. This is exclusive experience that probably only great art can deliver , maybe also great love... Originally Posted by christianm77
Nevertheless... the basis of Bach music is harmony... and I see no problem in writing dm and am in Bach's analysis because actually it's the first thing we should find out... we should hear harmonic plan of the piece, modulation and which exactly... fake cadences, interfered and postponed cadences... codas... stable and transitionsl parts... This is the most important thing to understand it as music.
The next thing is to understand genres and stylistic references... if there dance or choral structures.. fanfare and lamento... even if it is secular it may use church music form... and it's a part of language too...do we hear them all? We never know.. after all there are quite
Only after this it makes sense to analyze polyphonic work and finally we will see in most cases that initial theme especially in figues contained all the potential possibilities of harmonic development. I
-
Jazz musicians don't so much seek to understand classical music on its own terms so much as appropriate it for their own means.
-
I don't what to say... in the context it seems so... I don't know.. meaningless. Originally Posted by christianm77
It's like coming to huge giotto Capella and look for where there is a yellow colour used.... find it and leave.
Besides I do not know why you speak on behalf of all jazz musicians. I speak only for myself.
-
I mean on the whole. Plenty of jazz musicians have studied classical composition formally - Herbie, Kenny Wheeler (IIRC), Jim Hall even Coleman Hawkins apparently. But the needs of the jazz musicians are obviously different. Originally Posted by Jonah
I would say for instance we are less interested in form in that sense, because in traditional jazz improvisation we are already improvising over a pre-set 32 bar form.
So borrowings from classical music are based around what is useful to the jazz musician and certain aspects - the descriptive harmonic lines of the solo Bach string music, the colouristic harmony of Debussy - have been a big deal with jazzers since the early days. Concerted attempts to apply motivic development have also been borrowed from composition - Jim Hall springs to mind.
But it will never be the same thing because of the way jazz improvisation works.
-
Let me tske one step backward...
Your topic is about altered scale...
My point is that it is not enough to find something looking like altered scale in the score of classical composer...
It is important to listen to all the piece to fond out if it is teally a scale here... is the scale a part of musical language of thus music?
I have seen too many analytical works that find scales almost everywhere.
Of course early modality and folk scales can be traced through all the history of classical music.
Just let's analyze certain pieces. Not 2 bars with altered notes but at least a movement. That would be fair for music, and musical for us
-
What are it's own terms? Musicians of every stripe, that came to be after the fact, tend to apply the systems of understanding fromJazz musicians don't so much seek to understand classical music on its own terms so much as appropriate it for their own means.
their own era in relation to all past musical events. It is hard to avoid doing so.
In classical theory I was taught the chords on different degrees of the major and natural minor scales early on.
Harmonic minor was presented as a supplementary modification of natural minor, adding the dominant V7 chord.
Ascending melodic minor was a melodic modification to replace the augmented 2nd of the harmonic minor.
I was also taught that in modal music a final cadence raised leading tone chord was added to the modes lacking one to
final cadences and sometimes also to other important phrase closure moments. This was a step on the path to the
major/minor tonal system.
We then applied this scale chordal system to chorales and all the other musical examples that we studied,
including contrapuntal music. I didn't question this then, but now I suspect this to be a a historical fairy tale,
using a more contemporary system of analysis and applying it to the music of composers whom likely thought
in different terms about their work. Despite the historical indiscretions, the methodology did yield valuable insights.
Likewise I don't see the harm in thinking of altered scale as the seventh degree of the jazz melodic minor.
I see modes and their associated harmonies both as integrated into their parent scale and also as independent
free agents that can add movement and color.
In both instances, historical truth telling would be a welcome addition to my overall musical understanding,
but I don't regret the insights gained by these contemporary method rewrites of past artistry.
-
The place to look for it would surely by in French music seeking to inject a bit of exotic flavour surely? So Debussy, ravel and Satie do seem like obvious candidates. Originally Posted by Jonah
But yeah, I agree. Debussy's use of the pentatonic and whole tone scales are famous for instance, because they are unmistakeable. Ravel - you have a bar of superlocrian.
So the rather frustrating question is - where does the super locrian come from as a jazz education thing - it's known to classical theorists by 1961 at he latest, but not given any particular importance as a synthetic mode. DTs work can't really help us here because it is contemporary and basically ahistorical perspective of most jazz theory texts doesn't really help either.
-
Yeah, I totally agree with your perspective and points. Originally Posted by bako
A good example of the fairy tale aspect would be Tallis's use of cross relations in cadences for instance - the English Cadence. And every music student knows Bach is allowed to break the rules of Bach Chorale harmony exercises.
I see my stuff about jazz as being like that - such as my anti vertical harmony riff.
In fact I think everyone should practice strictly, but there is a place after a while for saying 'you know what it's really not worth worrying about any of this stuff in performance.'
'Practice like a scientist, play like a drunk' to quote George Garzone.
Analysis is taking the free utterances of artist who has spent thousands of hours practicing stuff strictly and divining some structure from them. Most of the time it works, but quite often there are moments which are outside the regular rules.
New rules can be written, or a historical period of music can be simplified to a set of rules that gets the basic sound. If that makes any sense.
Reply With Quote
Henriksen Bud or Blu 6
Today, 07:53 PM in For Sale